Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Steve Stroh


Motorola designed Canopy specifically for the WISP market, not the 
carrier market.


Alvarion designed VL specifically for the carrier market, not the WISP 
market.



Thanks,

Steve

On Apr 11, 2006, at 18:55, Dylan Oliver wrote:

How is any product qualified as 'Carrier-Grade'? What is it about 
Alvarion VL that makes the cut vs. Canopy? Lord knows Motorola 
produces far more 'Carrier-Grade' equipment than Alvarion ever will - 
so where did they go wrong with Canopy?


 Also, I've heard lately several complaints that Waverider has trouble 
sustaining even 1 Mbps throughput ... what is your experience, John?


 Best,
--
Dylan Oliver
Primaverity, LLC--


---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Charles Wu
snip
Motorola designed Canopy specifically for the WISP market, not the 
carrier market.

Alvarion designed VL specifically for the carrier market, not the WISP 
market.
/snip

Ah, the mis-perceptions of the rugged metal enclosure =)

Steve, can you please explain why carriers would prefer a CSMA/CA over a
scheduled (WiMAX-like) MAC?

Thanks

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steve Stroh
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:05 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP






Thanks,

Steve

On Apr 11, 2006, at 18:55, Dylan Oliver wrote:

 How is any product qualified as 'Carrier-Grade'? What is it about
 Alvarion VL that makes the cut vs. Canopy? Lord knows Motorola 
 produces far more 'Carrier-Grade' equipment than Alvarion ever will - 
 so where did they go wrong with Canopy?

  Also, I've heard lately several complaints that Waverider has trouble
 sustaining even 1 Mbps throughput ... what is your experience, John?

  Best,
 --
 Dylan Oliver
 Primaverity, LLC--

---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Michael Watson




Hello,

Maybe my math is off this morning, for lack of coffee but 
2286 Kbit does not equal 22000 Kbit   (2.286 Mbit does not equal 22
Mega bit.)
which is what I thought I saw at first glance.

So if that was KBYTE (which I think it is) instead of Kbit (Kb vs KB)
2286 KBYTE x 8 = 18288 (18.288 Mega Bit) 

Which is certainly impressive considering the fact that its 10 radios
away, and 8 hops as the traceroute shows!   

But it is Still a bit above half  the 30 or 35 Mbit you were previously
quoting.

-Michael


Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

  It is TCP.  We do not use UDP since it gives a reading that will never
be seen by a customer doing an FTP download.  We are looking at
building in iperf so we should be able to do tcp or udp tests in
future.

I have a network from Valemount, BC to McBride, BC that has about 100
km of repeater distances.  The shot is split in half with mountain
shots at each (43 km each) and about 5 km from each mountain top to
the POP in each town.  We can pull over 20 mbps from POP to POP.  It
is 8 hops and goes through 10 radios.  I have pasted a speed test from
the POP in Valemount to the POP in McBride.  Both are Linux systems
with 1 GHz or better processors that we use for firewall and bandwidth
control.  Also I have the traceroute to show the hops.

lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.29.1 password -rx
rx rate: 2286 KB/sec  (Press Ctrl-C to exit)
lon-home:~/staros #

lon-home:~/staros # traceroute 10.10.29.1
traceroute to 10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  192.168.250.10  0.430 ms   0.401 ms   0.496 ms
 2  10.10.48.254  1.655 ms   1.447 ms   1.185 ms
 3  10.10.227.254  2.686 ms   1.965 ms   5.428 ms
 4  10.10.12.4  5.469 ms   3.250 ms   4.501 ms
 5  10.10.47.253  4.946 ms   4.415 ms   3.581 ms
 6  10.10.51.254  6.077 ms   6.472 ms   8.063 ms
 7  10.14.99.254  12.615 ms *   5.777 ms
 8  10.10.29.1  6.569 ms   7.295 ms   7.686 ms
lon-home:~/staros #

Lonnie

On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
 Lonnie,

 Is that TCP or UDP?

 Travis
 Microserv


 Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:
 Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 mbps
of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible data.

Lonnie

On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Dan,

 We had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on
another wireless list.

 What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The fastest I have
seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP traffic passing
thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures?

 Travis
 Microserv


 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I believe that the atheros chipset is capped at 35Mbps, although users of MT
have claimed higher using very fast cpu's.



I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that push 30Mbps….
Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus QoS for VoIP
and all the other features available make a nice system






Dan Metcalf
 Wireless Broadband Systems
 www.wbisp.com
 781-566-2053 ext 6201

1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Travis
Johnson
 Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP



Hi,

 Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards
in just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum?

 Travis
 Microserv

 Paul Hendry wrote: All the details are on the Valemount web site

 http://www.staros.com/starvx/

 Cheers,

 P.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
 Behalf Of Richard Goodin
 Sent: 11 April 2006 09:15
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

 So... Who makes them?, how much?




 Hi Richard,

 This cloaking mechanism is the 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes that
 George was referring to on the Star WAR boards. Works really well and even
 seems to improve signal quality.

 Cheers,

 P.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
 Behalf Of Richard Goodin
 Sent: 11 April 2006 08:09
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP




 Guys;
 These all sound great. I was reading just a couple months back about a
 WISP

 operator that had a severe problem. Just a few yards away, maybe 300 feet,
 another guy put up his tower. I think they were both on 2.4 GHZ, and
 someone suggested a different AP that would not even be detected by
 conventional systems. Something about nonstandard bandwidth, channel
 spacing or coding. I really feel that stealth is best here. These other
 guys have been in business for a while and could cause trouble that I do
 not

 need.

 Lee


 Trango does make a good product. I still have 2 Sunstream AP's in use.

 They



 are like Timex watches.

 I'm using Star War boards. A little bit more than 

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Steve Stroh


John:

Here's my working definition of carrier grade:

Designed for use by carriers
Suitable for use by carriers
Sufficiently reliable for use by carriers

There is MUCH that goes into a product designed for use by carriers. 
It's expensive and a tough market, so a lot of vendors don't try. Here 
are just a few features that are carrier grade requirements from my 
perspective:

* Designed for use in all conceivable weather elements
* Designed for long operational use with minimal attention (in the WISP 
market, one measure is that it doesn't reboot itself, or require 
regular reboots)

* Designed for easy and fast repair
* The vendor stocks ample replacement units deployed geographically for 
fast supply.
* Support expertise by the vendor is readily available (excellent, 
easy-to-access tech support). Note that such support is almost never 
free, and carriers don't expect it to be. When they need help, they 
need it NOW and need to get their systems back online fast. (Carriers 
often have mandated time-to-repair maximums by regulatory agencies.)
* Subtle features like strain relief on all connectors, meeting the 
telecom industry requirements for rack mounting, built-in protection 
for power line surges and lightning.

* Superb monitoring and remote control capabilities
* Offer continuous VERY-in-depth training programs at the factory so 
that carriers can get their personnel FULLY up to speed on a product. 
Again, this almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be.
* Offer continuous product improvement, bug fixes, recalls when 
appropriate, and does so proactively when an issue is identified, and 
does so in a way to minimize downtime such as offering proactive 
replacement units.


Etc.

Regarding Alvarion versus WISPs... it's pretty simple. By offering 
more like carrier-grade products, Alvarion saw FAR more market demand 
by carriers, public safety, enterprise than they saw in the WISP 
market. They are willing to sell to WISPs, but few WISPs are willing to 
take the time to truly understand Alvarion's value proposition which 
involves FAR more than mere price of the product. You've finally come 
around to this view John, and you'll discover that you have a lot of 
company in that view - which isn't (widely) represented on this list or 
necessarily within WISPA. That's because operators who have spent the 
money for quality gear like Alvarion's generally don't have NEARLY as 
many issues with such gear that require group support... and such 
operators don't wish to associate their businesses with the we'll just 
hack up a Linksys AP and have cheap gear attitude that a lot of people 
in the telecom industry equate with WISPs.


Is Alvarion arrogant? Yes, at times, and certain individuals. But I 
think that's mostly a lot of pride and recognition that they were one 
of the pioneering companies in making it possible to offer 
carrier-grade services in license-exempt spectrum - something that the 
telecom industry KNEW could NOT be done. It's also the case that 
Alvarion offers the broadest product line in Broadband Wireless 
Internet Access - licensed and license-exempt, fixed and mobile, 
high-capacity and low-capacity, etc. Alvarion has very capable 
competitors in various segments, but I can't think of any company that 
competes head-to-head with Alvarion in all segments, even Airspan.



Thanks,

Steve

On Apr 11, 2006, at 20:51, John Scrivner wrote:

I decided to do some reading on the term carrier-grade and have 
found the following to be what is considered a definition in relation 
to our industry. One random source on the web refers to this as,  A 
term that implies a system that is designed to have increased 
availability and timeliness to meet the requirements of a modern 
communications network element. I saw this quantified on one site as 
being, a network device which has a sustained uptime of over 99.999%. 
This was as close to a quantifiable definition as I have found though 
it gives no length of time or other parameters to use for calculation 
of this percentage. According to Hughes Software Systems in regard to 
Carrier-grade they state that equipment can only be considered 
Carrier-grade after several years of real field use shows that it is 
highly available and reliable. In the end it is a very subjective term 
and one I will not use in the future unless I can quantify the 
classification. Basically there is no firm definition but I have heard 
of Alvarion referred to as Carrier-grade by others and mistakingly 
assumed it was a clearly defined characteristic. My apologies for this 
error in wording.


With that said I still think Alvarion is a far better platform than 
Canopy which is strictly my opinion and has no basis in fact. In the 
past I have been put-off by a perceived arrogance I have seen by some 
Alvarion representatives who have insisted previously that they had 
the only viable solution for wireless broadband and seemed as though 
they were claiming almost a 

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
Actually 2,286 KBytes/sec is 22.86 mbps as compared to the way Telcos
rate their ADSL throughput, so I use the same x10 method.

The quote of 35 mbps and higher is between two radios whereas the copy
and paste shows through ten radios.  Obviously to get 22 mbps at the
end there is a higher rate in the middle since you lose a bit at each
radio.

Here is the test repeated on one radio hop.  That radio link is also
the main feed for the network that feeds to McBride and picks up 9 AP
sites and over 200 customers.  It brings the feeds into 4 resale ADSL
lines that we get from Sprint.  The normal traffic through that link
is about 2 mbps so my test was competing with traffic on a live link.

We use source routing to send particular customers to our choice of
ADSL line.  I do manual shifting for balancing, but since average
throughput is 2 mbps and each ADSL line is 4 mbps / 1 mbps we are only
scratching the surface.  The system does peak to over 10 mbps but
very, very rarely.

Lonnie

lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.48.254 password -tx
tx rate: 4607 KB/sec  (Press Ctrl-C to exit)
lon-home:~/staros # tracepath 10.10.48.254
1:  192.168.250.200 (192.168.250.200)  0.381ms pmtu 1500
1:  192.168.250.10 (192.168.250.10)1.241ms
2:  10.10.48.254 (10.10.48.254)2.565ms reached
 Resume: pmtu 1500 hops 2 back 2
lon-home:~/staros #

On 4/12/06, Michael Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hello,

 Maybe my math is off this morning, for lack of coffee but
 2286 Kbit does not equal 22000 Kbit   (2.286 Mbit does not equal 22 Mega
 bit.)
 which is what I thought I saw at first glance.

 So if that was KBYTE (which I think it is) instead of Kbit (Kb vs KB)
 2286 KBYTE x 8 = 18288 (18.288 Mega Bit)

 Which is certainly impressive considering the fact that its 10 radios away,
 and 8 hops as the traceroute shows!

 But it is Still a bit above half  the 30 or 35 Mbit you were previously
 quoting.

 -Michael



 Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:
 It is TCP. We do not use UDP since it gives a reading that will never
be
 seen by a customer doing an FTP download. We are looking at
building in
 iperf so we should be able to do tcp or udp tests in
future.

I have a
 network from Valemount, BC to McBride, BC that has about 100
km of repeater
 distances. The shot is split in half with mountain
shots at each (43 km
 each) and about 5 km from each mountain top to
the POP in each town. We can
 pull over 20 mbps from POP to POP. It
is 8 hops and goes through 10 radios.
 I have pasted a speed test from
the POP in Valemount to the POP in McBride.
 Both are Linux systems
with 1 GHz or better processors that we use for
 firewall and bandwidth
control. Also I have the traceroute to show the
 hops.

lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.29.1 password -rx
rx rate:
 2286 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit)
lon-home:~/staros #

lon-home:~/staros #
 traceroute 10.10.29.1
traceroute to 10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1), 30 hops max, 40
 byte packets
1 192.168.250.10 0.430 ms 0.401 ms 0.496 ms
2 10.10.48.254
 1.655 ms 1.447 ms 1.185 ms
3 10.10.227.254 2.686 ms 1.965 ms 5.428 ms
4
 10.10.12.4 5.469 ms 3.250 ms 4.501 ms
5 10.10.47.253 4.946 ms 4.415 ms
 3.581 ms
6 10.10.51.254 6.077 ms 6.472 ms 8.063 ms
7 10.14.99.254 12.615
 ms * 5.777 ms
8 10.10.29.1 6.569 ms 7.295 ms 7.686 ms
lon-home:~/staros
 #

Lonnie

On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Lonnie,

Is that TCP or UDP?

Travis
Microserv


Lonnie Nunweiler
 wrote:
Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35
 mbps
of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible
 data.

Lonnie

On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Dan,

We
 had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on
another
 wireless list.

What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The
 fastest I have
seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP
 traffic passing
thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures?

Travis
 Microserv


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I believe that the atheros chipset
 is capped at 35Mbps, although users of MT
have claimed higher using very
 fast cpu's.



I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that
 push 30Mbps….
Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus
 QoS for VoIP
and all the other features available make a nice
 system






Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
 781-566-2053 ext 6201

1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




 


From:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of Travis
Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM
To:
 WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP



Hi,

 Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards
in
 just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum?

Travis
Microserv

 Paul Hendry wrote: All the details are on the Valemount web 

Re: [WISPA] out-sourced billing/collections

2006-04-12 Thread Tom DeReggi
We found outsourcing tracking the customer billing was not a savings because 
we have to much stuff linked to customer records, that would be just 
replicating the work.


For example, having customerrecords links to tickets, scripting 
provisioning, etc. or having Third party outsourced support centers able to 
access the data, or link to.


But the bigger problem was relationships with third party, agent, reselers, 
and property owners. They all needed to get paid based on the cost end users 
paid for service, and which customer's were theirs.  We didn't find any 
outsourced solutions, nor  in house solutions that did this well. The 
closest thing was Engage IP.  So I believe Outsourced custoemr records is 
only appropriate if a solution can track the wholesale/reseller/parner 
relationships.  If your business does not do these things, then outsourcing 
billing is OK.


I suggest that small companies look to Quickbooks, to help speed their 
billing, until they have systems and/or staff able to handle their own 
inhouse system appropriately.


But thats just my opinion.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:02 PM
Subject: [WISPA] out-sourced billing/collections


As we grow we have more of a need to outsource the billing/collections or 
hire

somebody inhouse

Is anybody outsourcing the billing?

Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 04/10/2006


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] Government grants

2006-04-12 Thread Tom DeReggi
Anyone know any thing about HUD Block grants, these guys qualified for? 
Looks like these guys got government funding from three different government 
sources, including the feds to deploy broadband.


one of the most significant WiMAX deployments to date, regional Midwest 
service provider Arialink Broadband says it will build out a broadband 
wireless network for all of Muskegon County, MI, using 802.16e equipment 
from Samsung. Muskegon County borders Lake Michigan. It is about 200 miles 
northeast of Chicago and 200 miles northwest west of Detroit. The network is 
a public-private partnership funded by a $2.2 million federal grant from the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, together with a $4.5 million 
loan from the state of Michigan's Economic Development Corporation. Arialink 
CEO Jason Schreiber said the company will invest $6 million to build the 
network, aiming to provide Internet access at speeds of 3 Mbps at a cost of 
$18.99 a month.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP




John:

Here's my working definition of carrier grade:

Designed for use by carriers
Suitable for use by carriers
Sufficiently reliable for use by carriers

There is MUCH that goes into a product designed for use by carriers. It's 
expensive and a tough market, so a lot of vendors don't try. Here are just 
a few features that are carrier grade requirements from my perspective:

* Designed for use in all conceivable weather elements
* Designed for long operational use with minimal attention (in the WISP 
market, one measure is that it doesn't reboot itself, or require regular 
reboots)

* Designed for easy and fast repair
* The vendor stocks ample replacement units deployed geographically for 
fast supply.
* Support expertise by the vendor is readily available (excellent, 
easy-to-access tech support). Note that such support is almost never free, 
and carriers don't expect it to be. When they need help, they need it NOW 
and need to get their systems back online fast. (Carriers often have 
mandated time-to-repair maximums by regulatory agencies.)
* Subtle features like strain relief on all connectors, meeting the 
telecom industry requirements for rack mounting, built-in protection for 
power line surges and lightning.

* Superb monitoring and remote control capabilities
* Offer continuous VERY-in-depth training programs at the factory so that 
carriers can get their personnel FULLY up to speed on a product. Again, 
this almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be.
* Offer continuous product improvement, bug fixes, recalls when 
appropriate, and does so proactively when an issue is identified, and does 
so in a way to minimize downtime such as offering proactive replacement 
units.


Etc.

Regarding Alvarion versus WISPs... it's pretty simple. By offering more 
like carrier-grade products, Alvarion saw FAR more market demand by 
carriers, public safety, enterprise than they saw in the WISP market. They 
are willing to sell to WISPs, but few WISPs are willing to take the time 
to truly understand Alvarion's value proposition which involves FAR more 
than mere price of the product. You've finally come around to this view 
John, and you'll discover that you have a lot of company in that view - 
which isn't (widely) represented on this list or necessarily within WISPA. 
That's because operators who have spent the money for quality gear like 
Alvarion's generally don't have NEARLY as many issues with such gear that 
require group support... and such operators don't wish to associate 
their businesses with the we'll just hack up a Linksys AP and have cheap 
gear attitude that a lot of people in the telecom industry equate with 
WISPs.


Is Alvarion arrogant? Yes, at times, and certain individuals. But I think 
that's mostly a lot of pride and recognition that they were one of the 
pioneering companies in making it possible to offer carrier-grade services 
in license-exempt spectrum - something that the telecom industry KNEW 
could NOT be done. It's also the case that Alvarion offers the broadest 
product line in Broadband Wireless Internet Access - licensed and 
license-exempt, fixed and mobile, high-capacity and low-capacity, etc. 
Alvarion has very capable competitors in various segments, but I can't 
think of any company that competes head-to-head with Alvarion in all 
segments, even Airspan.



Thanks,

Steve

On Apr 11, 2006, at 20:51, John Scrivner wrote:

I decided to do some reading on the term carrier-grade and have found 
the following to be what is considered a definition in relation to our 
industry. One random source on the web refers to this as,  A term that 
implies a system that is designed to have increased availability and 
timeliness to meet the requirements 

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Tom DeReggi

Lonnie,

Unfortuneately, not having UDP tests, does not allow accurate results. The 
reason is that UDP will show the point at which packet loss will occur, and 
at what percentage. Without that similar data, a TCP test is pointless.  I 
see some people do TCP speed tests (a method other than FTP), and it goes 
full capacity minus the percent packet loss of a percent or so. But then 
when a FTP gets done performance drops to a few hundred kb. The reason is 
FTP slows itself down to attempt to reduce packetloss. IN many wireless 
systems, the packetloss stays consistent and can not be removed by reducing 
speed, therefore the speed just keeps going slower and slower and slower 
until it crawls. A TCP test also does not show consistency of a link, or 
sparatic slow down, as they all get averaged out over the time period of the 
test.  If there are slowdown or hesitance on a wireless link  using a UDP 
test, the packetloss is instantly seen.  Doing a TCP test may show peek 
speed or average speed, but it does not show the ability to deliver 
consistent speed, what most companies need that are buying wireless to 
replace T1 lines.


Relying on TCP test alone, limits your product to a lower grade product, 
less than it can be.  An adequate test, does not need to be a UDP test, it 
can also be a layer2 test. The most valuable tool of Trango for example is 
its Layer2 Linktest, that shows throughput, and most importantly packetloss 
while performing that test.  It gives the abilty to run a test that takes 
priority over any other traffic on the link, to get the true full 
performance of that link at that moment in time.  It allows an integrator to 
instantly be able to determine the health of their links with total 
accuracy, quickly, without first disconnecting clients, that can be 
complicated, when multiple Linux re-configures might be needed to stop all 
other traffic.


For radios that don't have their own MAC, Iperf is one way to get most of 
the data collected. Measuring packet loss is more important than measuring 
top speed in my mind.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP


It is TCP.  We do not use UDP since it gives a reading that will never
be seen by a customer doing an FTP download.  We are looking at
building in iperf so we should be able to do tcp or udp tests in
future.

I have a network from Valemount, BC to McBride, BC that has about 100
km of repeater distances.  The shot is split in half with mountain
shots at each (43 km each) and about 5 km from each mountain top to
the POP in each town.  We can pull over 20 mbps from POP to POP.  It
is 8 hops and goes through 10 radios.  I have pasted a speed test from
the POP in Valemount to the POP in McBride.  Both are Linux systems
with 1 GHz or better processors that we use for firewall and bandwidth
control.  Also I have the traceroute to show the hops.

lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.29.1 password -rx
rx rate: 2286 KB/sec  (Press Ctrl-C to exit)
lon-home:~/staros #

lon-home:~/staros # traceroute 10.10.29.1
traceroute to 10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1  192.168.250.10  0.430 ms   0.401 ms   0.496 ms
2  10.10.48.254  1.655 ms   1.447 ms   1.185 ms
3  10.10.227.254  2.686 ms   1.965 ms   5.428 ms
4  10.10.12.4  5.469 ms   3.250 ms   4.501 ms
5  10.10.47.253  4.946 ms   4.415 ms   3.581 ms
6  10.10.51.254  6.077 ms   6.472 ms   8.063 ms
7  10.14.99.254  12.615 ms *   5.777 ms
8  10.10.29.1  6.569 ms   7.295 ms   7.686 ms
lon-home:~/staros #

Lonnie

On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Lonnie,

 Is that TCP or UDP?

 Travis
 Microserv


 Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:
 Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 mbps
of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible data.

Lonnie

On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Dan,

 We had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on
another wireless list.

 What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The fastest I have
seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP traffic 
passing

thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures?

 Travis
 Microserv


 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I believe that the atheros chipset is capped at 35Mbps, although users of 
MT

have claimed higher using very fast cpu's.



I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that push 30Mbps….
Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus QoS for VoIP
and all the other features available make a nice system






Dan Metcalf
 Wireless Broadband Systems
 www.wbisp.com
 781-566-2053 ext 6201

1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL 

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Tom DeReggi
PS.  UDP tests usually need to be run with Dynamic Modulation features 
disabled.


ISPs that delver telco grade services usually need to operate without 
Dynamic moduilation anyway, to consistently guarantee the link capacity 
available to tenants, and set at a speed that can deliver reliabilty 
consistently, in my opinion. I know some orthogon users may differ in 
opinion..


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP


Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 mbps
of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible data.

Lonnie

On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Dan,

 We had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on
another wireless list.

 What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The fastest I have
seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP traffic 
passing

thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures?

 Travis
 Microserv


 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I believe that the atheros chipset is capped at 35Mbps, although users of 
MT

have claimed higher using very fast cpu's.



I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that push 30Mbps….
Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus QoS for VoIP
and all the other features available make a nice system






Dan Metcalf
 Wireless Broadband Systems
 www.wbisp.com
 781-566-2053 ext 6201

1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis
Johnson
 Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP



Hi,

 Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards
in just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum?

 Travis
 Microserv

 Paul Hendry wrote: All the details are on the Valemount web site

 http://www.staros.com/starvx/

 Cheers,

 P.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Richard Goodin
 Sent: 11 April 2006 09:15
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

 So... Who makes them?, how much?




 Hi Richard,

 This cloaking mechanism is the 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes that
 George was referring to on the Star WAR boards. Works really well and 
even

 seems to improve signal quality.

 Cheers,

 P.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Richard Goodin
 Sent: 11 April 2006 08:09
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP




 Guys;
 These all sound great.  I was reading just a couple months back about a
 WISP

 operator that had a severe problem.  Just a few yards away, maybe 300 
feet,

 another guy put up his tower.  I think they were both on 2.4 GHZ, and
 someone suggested a different AP that would not even be detected by
 conventional systems.  Something about nonstandard bandwidth, channel
 spacing or coding.  I really feel that stealth is best here.  These other
 guys have been in business for a while and could cause trouble that I do
 not

 need.

 Lee


 Trango does make a good product. I still have 2 Sunstream AP's in use.

 They



 are like Timex watches.

 I'm using Star War boards. A little bit more than the trango s. The 2

 card


 boards in a 5 gig rootenna let me use the 2nd card for an omni.
 Speeds are about 20+ megs or so and I cloak down to 5MHz and 10MHz

 channel


 sizes.

 One of the things I've been doing is slapping up repeaters all over the
 place. Cheap as hell, about 400.00 or so.

 Lately I've ran lmr400 into some of my customers attics and installed an
 omni for their home wifi. We tend to service our customers right to the

 pc


 and it's a lot better router than a linksys. And I have happier customers
 and I'm happier.

 The 2 port and the 4 port both have dual ethernet as well.

 Pretty versatile product. Lonnie has come along way with the new war
 platform.


 George





 Travis Johnson wrote:


 That's on quantity 30 $149 each. 5.8ghz, dual polarity, up to 3

 miles



 (add $40 for a dish and it goes up to 13 miles) and delivers up to

 10Mbps.




 Hard to beat! And with SmartPolling on the AP, you can get hundreds of
 customers per sector.

 Travis
 Microserv

 Rick Smith wrote:



 that's only quantity (large!) pricing isn't it ?

 Brian Rohrbacher wrote:



 If it's pretty absent of trees you might look at 5.8.  Trango has that
 cpe for $150.  Not going to find any propriety gear cheaper.

 Richard Goodin wrote:



 I have been planning my WISP for about a year, and have yet to begin
 delivery of bandwidth to customers. My choice for service delivery

 was






 

Re: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed

2006-04-12 Thread Tom DeReggi



Blair,

I agree, our environments are different, each 
allowing each of us to deliver different business models, each appropriate for 
our own markets. 

One of the things I'm learning is, as 
awireless provider, I live in the wrong town:-)
I'd make more money in this business, if I moved to 
an underserved area!

But I believe in competition, evolution and 
survival of the fittest. Our competitive environment hardens us. We are 
adapting to our environment in order to survive, and hopefully one day as a 
result, we willthrive. Getting better every day.

PS. Like the home tower plan. 

Tom DeReggiRapidDSL  Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless 
Broadband

- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Blair Davis 

  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:05 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas 
  Needed
   Tom,
  $59.95 per month small business, no contrac
  
  I'm not sure how that is a good thing. 
  Riskwith no contract, and no margin to justify the 
  risk.
  If its a retail place with 1 or 2 computers we 
  got a asyncronis plan for $99, but won't pick up the phone for less than 
  $150.
  
  $899 including a 70ft bracketed tower.
  
  That I want to see. Whats the breakdown of your 
  budget for it? And time for erection?
  256Kbit/sec up/down. Small business is less 
  than 6 computers. What risk? equipment and such are totally 
  covered by the install costs tower sections, $75 each x 7= 
  $525. Concrete $35. Bracket $35. Misc. rebar, bolts, gravel, 
  mast, clamps and such $25. total tower parts... $620Shipping? 
  no. Truck delivery from a local dist who makes a delivery loop each 
  weekRadio equipment and antenna varies from $150-250. Average = 
  $200 Labor 4-8 man-hours. Average is 6. $25 per 
  man-hour. Labor = $150Total cost is $970. Cust pays $899 
  upfront. our normal install labor costs are paid for by the first months 
  service charge of $39.95. On the towers, we accept the the first 2 month 
  service charge is labor recovery.In this county, no permits required 
  for 70 ft or less. No additional fees. And tower install, (for a 
  bracketed tower), is a flat $899. often, the tower is only 40-50 ft, 
  saving us the cost of 2-3 sections as well as the extra labor.Install 
  time for a bracketed tower is 2-4 weeks, depending on time of year and weather 
  conditions.We are a small shop. on some things, we can do well 
  on our pricing. On others, like the 900MHz systems I am looking at, our 
  lack of size hurts us bad...Tom DeReggi wrote:
  




Tom DeReggiRapidDSL  Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed 
Wireless Broadband



  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Blair Davis 
  
  To: 
  WISPA General 
  List 
  Sent: 
  Friday, April 07, 2006 3:20 PM
  Subject: 
  Re: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed
  I have to agree with Mark here. We are using the same 
  model he is and we have more work than we know what to do 
  with$39.95 per month home, no contract / $59.95 per 
  month small business, no contract / Higher rates for special 
  services and/or special QoS, contract requiredInstalls start at 
  $199 and range to $899 including a 70ft bracketed tower. Special 
  cases go higher One subdivision just approved $5500 for a freestanding 
  tower to serve their 30 homes in a small valley. We own all radio 
  equipment.We clear our equipment and supplies cost for any new 
  install from the install fee. Sometimes, when we 'recycle' a radio, 
  we even make money on an install, but we don't plan on it. The labor 
  part of the install is covered by the first month or so's fees.We 
  allow self install if the customer buys his own equipment. No setup 
  charges for self install but unit must be approved prior to install and 
  must meet our snr requirements.We no longer try to compete 
  head-to-head with the cable or telephone companies. They can have 
  the $15 per month bottom feeders. There is way too much churn in 
  those markets for us.Another thing that helps us is that we are 
  more than an ISP. We are a full service computer shop as well. 
  When our customer calls in with a problem, and the radio gear checks out, 
  we don't pass them off as a problem in your computer, we hand the call to 
  our computer tech who can usually diagnose the problem over the 
  phone. If we go out and the problem is in the computer, not our 
  radio equipment, we waive the service call charge if the customer has our 
  shop fix the computer, and we will pick it up for free since we are 
  there.We credit a new customers first months service charge as a 
  discount to the referring customer. We started out 
  getting 4-5 calls a month for new service. We now get 5-7 a 
  WEEK. All word of mouth. Make friends with the real estate 
  agents. Give 

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
This may be the case, but the test we perform seems to describe what
we see in real life use.  As long as you have consistency it does not
matter what you do.  The ability to compare apples to apples is what
is truly important, and since we began to use TCP many years ago, we
still continue to do so, since it gives us a relevance and comparison
to the systems in current use.

My TCP numbers are lower than you'll get with a UDP test, so I am
quite happy to compare my TCP to UDP because my TCP numbers are pretty
nearly as high as numbers I hear reported for other high end systems
that test with UDP.

For instance, our TCP numbers on a  WRAP board were always in the 23
to 25 mbps range yet a UDP test would pull almost 35 mbps, which is a
number I have never seen even in my dreams doing an FTP transfer (with
the WRAP boards).  Typical numbers were always in the 1,800 to 2,000
KBytes/sec as reported by the FTP client.

Our goal is to give you numbers you will see in real life.  After all,
your user is going to be ragging on you based on the FTP results they
see.

I am always amazed at how labels get applied.  To call something a
lower grade product because of a test method sure indicates a
conclusion that needs to be re-examined.  Results are what count, not
how pretty you look or how good you sound.

We have come pretty close to the goal of real world numbers, so I am
not fazed at all by your lower grade product ranking.  It is strange
to have to lie to the customer to get a high grade product rating. 
Maybe we don't need that, and for the most part my users don't want it
either.  They don't want packet loss either.  Most of them prefer to
have the whole file delivered intact.

Regards,
Lonnie

On 4/12/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Lonnie,

 Unfortuneately, not having UDP tests, does not allow accurate results. The
 reason is that UDP will show the point at which packet loss will occur, and
 at what percentage. Without that similar data, a TCP test is pointless.  I
 see some people do TCP speed tests (a method other than FTP), and it goes
 full capacity minus the percent packet loss of a percent or so. But then
 when a FTP gets done performance drops to a few hundred kb. The reason is
 FTP slows itself down to attempt to reduce packetloss. IN many wireless
 systems, the packetloss stays consistent and can not be removed by reducing
 speed, therefore the speed just keeps going slower and slower and slower
 until it crawls. A TCP test also does not show consistency of a link, or
 sparatic slow down, as they all get averaged out over the time period of the
 test.  If there are slowdown or hesitance on a wireless link  using a UDP
 test, the packetloss is instantly seen.  Doing a TCP test may show peek
 speed or average speed, but it does not show the ability to deliver
 consistent speed, what most companies need that are buying wireless to
 replace T1 lines.

 Relying on TCP test alone, limits your product to a lower grade product,
 less than it can be.  An adequate test, does not need to be a UDP test, it
 can also be a layer2 test. The most valuable tool of Trango for example is
 its Layer2 Linktest, that shows throughput, and most importantly packetloss
 while performing that test.  It gives the abilty to run a test that takes
 priority over any other traffic on the link, to get the true full
 performance of that link at that moment in time.  It allows an integrator to
 instantly be able to determine the health of their links with total
 accuracy, quickly, without first disconnecting clients, that can be
 complicated, when multiple Linux re-configures might be needed to stop all
 other traffic.

 For radios that don't have their own MAC, Iperf is one way to get most of
 the data collected. Measuring packet loss is more important than measuring
 top speed in my mind.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:54 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP


 It is TCP.  We do not use UDP since it gives a reading that will never
 be seen by a customer doing an FTP download.  We are looking at
 building in iperf so we should be able to do tcp or udp tests in
 future.

 I have a network from Valemount, BC to McBride, BC that has about 100
 km of repeater distances.  The shot is split in half with mountain
 shots at each (43 km each) and about 5 km from each mountain top to
 the POP in each town.  We can pull over 20 mbps from POP to POP.  It
 is 8 hops and goes through 10 radios.  I have pasted a speed test from
 the POP in Valemount to the POP in McBride.  Both are Linux systems
 with 1 GHz or better processors that we use for firewall and bandwidth
 control.  Also I have the traceroute to show the hops.

 lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.29.1 password -rx
 rx rate: 2286 KB/sec  (Press Ctrl-C to exit)
 

[WISPA] request for comment w.r.t Canadian 700mhz

2006-04-12 Thread Carl A Jeptha




http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf08457e.html#
As this requires a smart and intelligent response, and
as I've always been accused of being rude and obnoxious ( maybe I
should write technical manuals) I would like a template of some sorts
for all Canadian wisps to use.
I am prepared to head this up as a spokesperson as a WISPA member (by
the way they have heard of WISPA). I have made contact am prepared to
be our liaison. 
Yes I do have ulterior motives.  :-)


-- 
You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
office 905 349-2084
Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900
skype cajeptha



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?

2006-04-12 Thread Tom DeReggi

Rick,

I'm sure you'd do well at anything you put your mind to, and I'm sure you 
are capable.

However, the only advice I can give is...

The key to success is finding the time to manage your company. The only real 
person that can be trusted to do that well are the people that have stake in 
that compnay. In my company's case its me personally. There is only so much 
time in the day.
A business owner needs to decide what business they want to be in, and then 
focus on that venture, its all one mortal human can handle in a competitive 
environment and succeed. A  CALL CENTER is a Full time business, just like 
your WISP. Helping your WISP clients, means staff is not available to help 
Call Center clients at the same time, and vice versa. These problems go 
away, when both companies scale large enough to have their own staff. 
However, getting a company to that stage, of self operating,  is where most 
business owners fail, its not easy.  You are no longer able to pick up the 
slack on your own. Franchises often make it. But getting two businesses to 
that stage simultaneously is near impossible.  So should your perogative to 
be a Call Center, go for it, thats what the American Dream is all about, you 
have just a good a chance as any one else. There is also a big need for a 
call center, where the owner has real world WISP experience to add 
credability to supporting WISPs. But to do a good job at a call center, be 
realistic that your WISP surely would sacrify to allow it to happen.


Which business do you want to be in?  Personally, its a struggle I face 
regularly. (WISP, Network integrator, Hardware reseller, router 
manufacturer, Software developer). Opportunity is on every corner, but you 
can't do it all well, which do you take?
A WISP clearly is NOT the least risky of all the options out there. 
However, I chose to be a WISP. I am banking on reoccuring revenue, one day 
without requiring reoccuring work to match, and realistic about the fact I 
hate to be caught behind a desk 24x7.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?



Ya know Ron, that was uncalled for.

Wow, ripped apart on-list.  Great atmosphere for getting some feedback
on a business idea.
Never again.

Hey Harnish, how about that ?   Argh.

Ron Johnson wrote:


Guys
We have been support ISPs for over 10 years. Dialup, Cable, DSL, or
wireless. Yes it can get complicated. But then again it is our business to
know how to get the job done.

Give me a call if we can help you with your Tech support and Customer
service calls

O BTW we price ours at a much better rate that these guys you are talking
about.

Ron Johnson
President National Support Center Inc.
800-203-7961

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Nash
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 6:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?

Google GTC tech support. They are reasonable.  Level 1 and level 2 techs
allow them to get their costs down.  If you have something specifically 
for

wisps that would be more valuable.

But there is a lot involved in doing this on. As a new customer of yours, 
I

would expect you to familiarize your techs with my way of doing things so
you can be useful for my customers when they call.

My business partner owns a call center and we have looked at doing this a
little without much interest in taking the plunge to do it.

GTC had a hefty startup fee (I think it was $5k) to have one of their
managers get familiar with my system and develop training for their L1  
L2

techs.  Then they took the number of subscribers we had and made the base
monthly fee ($1 x # of subs).  That gives you (1 minute x # of subs) of
'tech time' per month.  Any overage would be about $.60 per minute for 
that

month.

Not a bad deal.  I didn't feel that the diversity of my system lent itself
well to a 3rd party tech support at the time, and since then everything I
have chosen to deploy has had a consideration given to 'Call Center Tech
Support'.  Whether we do the tech support or not, it is worth it to spend
time and money to streamline tech support methods so we can hire support
personnel that are further down on the food chain.

Mark
-Original Message-
From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:04:12 To:WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?


I have a customer that just installed a $100k phone system and is lookin 
for other uses.


Having experience in both call center mangement and tech support 
department
creation / operations and management, I've got half a mind to sit a couple 
of

technical people down and start up a technical support call center 

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
What we do is measure non compressible data and that becomes the
absolute max I will let someone ask for.  That means with compressible
data we do better than they expect.  No harm done, we figure.

Lonnie

On 4/12/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 PS.  UDP tests usually need to be run with Dynamic Modulation features
 disabled.

 ISPs that delver telco grade services usually need to operate without
 Dynamic moduilation anyway, to consistently guarantee the link capacity
 available to tenants, and set at a speed that can deliver reliabilty
 consistently, in my opinion. I know some orthogon users may differ in
 opinion..

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:36 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP


 Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 mbps
 of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible data.

 Lonnie

 On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Dan,
 
   We had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on
  another wireless list.
 
   What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The fastest I have
  seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP traffic
  passing
  thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures?
 
   Travis
   Microserv
 
 
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
  I believe that the atheros chipset is capped at 35Mbps, although users of
  MT
  have claimed higher using very fast cpu's.
 
 
 
  I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that push 30Mbps….
  Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus QoS for VoIP
  and all the other features available make a nice system
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Dan Metcalf
   Wireless Broadband Systems
   www.wbisp.com
   781-566-2053 ext 6201
 
  1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis
  Johnson
   Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
 
 
 
  Hi,
 
   Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards
  in just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum?
 
   Travis
   Microserv
 
   Paul Hendry wrote: All the details are on the Valemount web site
 
   http://www.staros.com/starvx/
 
   Cheers,
 
   P.
 
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
   Behalf Of Richard Goodin
   Sent: 11 April 2006 09:15
   To: wireless@wispa.org
   Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
 
   So... Who makes them?, how much?
 
 
 
 
   Hi Richard,
 
   This cloaking mechanism is the 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes that
   George was referring to on the Star WAR boards. Works really well and
  even
   seems to improve signal quality.
 
   Cheers,
 
   P.
 
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
   Behalf Of Richard Goodin
   Sent: 11 April 2006 08:09
   To: wireless@wispa.org
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
 
 
 
 
   Guys;
   These all sound great.  I was reading just a couple months back about a
   WISP
 
   operator that had a severe problem.  Just a few yards away, maybe 300
  feet,
   another guy put up his tower.  I think they were both on 2.4 GHZ, and
   someone suggested a different AP that would not even be detected by
   conventional systems.  Something about nonstandard bandwidth, channel
   spacing or coding.  I really feel that stealth is best here.  These other
   guys have been in business for a while and could cause trouble that I do
   not
 
   need.
 
   Lee
 
 
   Trango does make a good product. I still have 2 Sunstream AP's in use.
 
   They
 
 
 
   are like Timex watches.
 
   I'm using Star War boards. A little bit more than the trango s. The 2
 
   card
 
 
   boards in a 5 gig rootenna let me use the 2nd card for an omni.
   Speeds are about 20+ megs or so and I cloak down to 5MHz and 10MHz
 
   channel
 
 
   sizes.
 
   One of the things I've been doing is slapping up repeaters all over the
   place. Cheap as hell, about 400.00 or so.
 
   Lately I've ran lmr400 into some of my customers attics and installed an
   omni for their home wifi. We tend to service our customers right to the
 
   pc
 
 
   and it's a lot better router than a linksys. And I have happier customers
   and I'm happier.
 
   The 2 port and the 4 port both have dual ethernet as well.
 
   Pretty versatile product. Lonnie has come along way with the new war
   platform.
 
 
   George
 
 
 
 
 
   Travis Johnson wrote:
 
 
   That's on quantity 30 $149 each. 5.8ghz, dual polarity, up to 3
 
   miles
 
 
 
   (add $40 for a dish and it goes up to 13 miles) and delivers up to
 
   

Re: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed

2006-04-12 Thread Tom DeReggi



One of the reasons to use Trango 
is

All products, 900, 2.4, 5.3, 5.8. PTP, 
allhave a common sceme.

Linktest command - to diagnose link 
health.
Dual Polarity on the Fly - to quickly adapt, and 
repairnetwork interference.
Low Price - For small communities deployments, 
lowest CPE price on market, regarding Fox Atlas.
Easy configuration sceme- offering remote 
management, Layer 2 security, large packets (VLAN pass), uninhibited 
bridging.
Polling mechanism- To deliver consistent 
performance as the network grows.
Built in basic surge protection.
Support excellent.

You can't lose going this path.

Plus, Trango gear has shown to hold its value, if 
you fail, and need to liquidate your gear after the fact.

One of the reasons to use Self made gear (Mikrotik, 
StarOS)

1. Flexible to expand your network at rock bottom 
cost,home to home realy with jsut a $100 add-on to existing CPE, without 
needing a direct shot to the central towerfrom every home. This is 
not only a cost saving in equipment, but in time, savinggetting approval 
for installation plans with home owners or MTU property managers, or preventing 
the need to even get approvals.

2.Latest trend gear,available NOW, to 
deploy today.In other words, OFDM APs available.

Has its benefits, which can not be denied. However, 
I chose Trango.

If needing carrier class gear, that can 
consistently deliver 20 mbps speeds or higher per sector, Alvarion may also be 
an excellent choice. But its about double the cost, and you lose 
flexibilty in many areas of business.

Tom DeReggiRapidDSL  Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless 
Broadband



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Joshua M. Andrews 
  To: wireless@wispa.org 
  Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:53 
PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas 
  Needed
  
  Chris:
  
  I've heard so much 
  about Trango that I'm really intrigued! What is it that you use for 900 
  MHz? Why would I choose Trango over WaveRider anyway? 
  Thanks.
  
  -
  
  
  Pete:
  
  Thank you very 
  much for the detailed response. I wouldn't say I will be desperate as 
  I'm doing it mostly as a benefit to the community and money is a side-note for 
  me (I already have a great career so I'm really in it for the fun). Have 
  you tried Trango's 900 MHz, and if so, did it compare well to WaveRider? 
  Secondly, what equipment for the 802.11b have you had the success with? 
  Thanks again!
  
  --
  
  
  JohnnyO:
  
  It seems to be the 
  consensus is not to have any contracts for the service. It also seems to 
  be the consensus that other successful WISPs are having great success not 
  charging rock bottom prices. I've heard great things about WaveRider in 
  general and it seems virtually everyone also says that if I offer more than 1 
  Mbps to customers then I'm pushing it with WaveRider. You're right about 
  the local business comments.. I've seen it work very well in our "tight-nit" 
  community. I probably should up the price a bit and rethink my WaveRider 
  strategy. I HAVE to have 900 MHz.. other WISPs have seriously come and 
  gone with their 2.4 GHz stuff due to the trees and so I'm stuck between a rock 
  (WaveRider) and a hard place (Trango). Any ideas in this regard? 
  Thank you kindly.
  
  -
  
  
  Mark:
  
  Thank you very 
  much for your comments. I'm planning on the snail pace to get started. 
  :)
  
  
  
  
  
  Brian:
  
  I can probably 
  help you with this. What OS is the sub using? What kind of backup 
  do you want? Data only, Ghosting, Full backups with incremental, how 
  often, etc? How many machines, is this server-based, or 
  client-based?
  
  
  
  
  Matt:
  
  You stated that 
  you "used trango in the past and don't use them anymore"... who do you use 
  now? Thanks.
  
  
  
  
  Blair:
  
  I wanna be your 
  friend. I need hand-holding and you sound like you were in the position 
  I'm in today and can really help. What equipment are you using? 
  Thanks.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Joshua
  
  
  

  -- WISPA Wireless List: 
  wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread danlist
Lonnie,

Is the WAR/staros platform working PTMP or is it PTP?

Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
 Of Lonnie Nunweiler
 Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:07 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
 
 What we do is measure non compressible data and that becomes the
 absolute max I will let someone ask for.  That means with compressible
 data we do better than they expect.  No harm done, we figure.
 
 Lonnie
 
 On 4/12/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  PS.  UDP tests usually need to be run with Dynamic Modulation features
  disabled.
 
  ISPs that delver telco grade services usually need to operate without
  Dynamic moduilation anyway, to consistently guarantee the link capacity
  available to tenants, and set at a speed that can deliver reliabilty
  consistently, in my opinion. I know some orthogon users may differ in
  opinion..
 
  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
 
 
  Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 mbps
  of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible data.
 
  Lonnie
 
  On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan,
  
We had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on
   another wireless list.
  
What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The fastest I have
   seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP traffic
   passing
   thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures?
  
Travis
Microserv
  
  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
  
   I believe that the atheros chipset is capped at 35Mbps, although users of
   MT
   have claimed higher using very fast cpu's.
  
  
  
   I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that push 30Mbps….
   Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus QoS for VoIP
   and all the other features available make a nice system
  
  
  
  
  
  
   Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
  
   1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  
  

  
  
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis
   Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
  
  
  
   Hi,
  
Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards
   in just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum?
  
Travis
Microserv
  
Paul Hendry wrote: All the details are on the Valemount web site
  
http://www.staros.com/starvx/
  
Cheers,
  
P.
  
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Richard Goodin
Sent: 11 April 2006 09:15
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
  
So... Who makes them?, how much?
  
  
  
  
Hi Richard,
  
This cloaking mechanism is the 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes that
George was referring to on the Star WAR boards. Works really well and
   even
seems to improve signal quality.
  
Cheers,
  
P.
  
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Richard Goodin
Sent: 11 April 2006 08:09
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
  
  
  
  
Guys;
These all sound great.  I was reading just a couple months back about a
WISP
  
operator that had a severe problem.  Just a few yards away, maybe 300
   feet,
another guy put up his tower.  I think they were both on 2.4 GHZ, and
someone suggested a different AP that would not even be detected by
conventional systems.  Something about nonstandard bandwidth, channel
spacing or coding.  I really feel that stealth is best here.  These other
guys have been in business for a while and could cause trouble that I do
not
  
need.
  
Lee
  
  
Trango does make a good product. I still have 2 Sunstream AP's in use.
  
They
  
  
  
are like Timex watches.
  
I'm using Star War boards. A little bit more than the trango s. The 2
  
card
  
  
boards in a 5 gig rootenna let me use the 2nd card for an omni.
Speeds are about 20+ megs or so and I cloak down to 5MHz and 10MHz
  
channel
  
  
sizes.
  
One of the things I've been doing is slapping up repeaters all over the
place. Cheap as hell, about 400.00 or so.
  

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Carl A Jeptha

Here's the reply for all answers.
Look at the name of the association. WISPA. We are not carriers, we Do 
Not get listed on the stock-exchange, we do not have money to burn. This 
is the reason for our existence. We deliver the goods where these fools 
fear to tread. A Microcell with 10 customers is profitable. Follow the 
10% rule - 100 people in the community of your AP. People this is Rural 
Countryside, where even your Cellphone don't work here most times, but 
we do (I have a Skypeout account to make calls). Don't forget your 911 
VOIP database. When you call 911 here, you hope the fire truck driver 
lives down the road from you. He knows it is the brick house on the 
north east corner.
My total area of service does not have a population of 1 million. 
Explain the $1,000,000.00 you want me to spend.
Tranzeo and Company got the message - here's a CPE for $5.00 - I'll take 
it, can I have twenty (don't know where they are going, but the price is 
right (bang,bang,bang, God my head is going to hurt tomorrow - this 
brickwall is not giving))
I have Wave rider in the garbage, I have Cirronet in the Garbage, I have 
Linksys in the Garbage, I have Engenius in the Garbage. How long have I 
been in business as a WISP - since 1999. Now I can guarantee you that if 
I had Alvarion/carrier grade vendor some of its models would be in the 
garbage. (you know what carrier grades means  - VAR Value added reseller 
- charge more for the future services you are going to deliver, if 
needed). Now Today I climb a tower and replaced a CB3 (that wisps swear 
by) with a lowly Hawking HWBA11 (I don't even think Hawkings make them 
anymore (damn Everyready Bunny stole the idea - just keep on going). 
All of my CB3's are showing their age. My Tranzeo CPQ's, 6000's and 
5.8's are doing fine (Including the one that flew off the vehicle at a 
high rate of speed (95kph - thats' what the speedo said) )Forgot it on 
the roof - so I'm over 50 - sue me.


Vendor if your equipment don't follow a standard I won't buy it
If your equipment does not offer a ROI in three months max, no way
If your equipment cost more than $300.00 installed no customer wants it
Notice I am still waiting for 900mhz equipment

Oh by the way this is my business, my clients, my area and I learnt the 
hard way what is good for my business. (by the time we had learnt how to 
use our Cirronet, we had to remove it, the industry had moved on. So I 
am thankful for the live I got out of our CB3's and Hawkings. But they 
are paid for and we made a profit. Now we are replacing the radio's 
with Tranzeo 6000's and CPQ CPE's, unless we get a NLOS solution with 
bandwidth.


End of Ramble, Sorry I took so long, :-)

You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
office 905 349-2084
Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900
skype cajeptha



Steve Stroh wrote:


John:

Here's my working definition of carrier grade:

Designed for use by carriers
Suitable for use by carriers
Sufficiently reliable for use by carriers

There is MUCH that goes into a product designed for use by carriers. 
It's expensive and a tough market, so a lot of vendors don't try. Here 
are just a few features that are carrier grade requirements from my 
perspective:

* Designed for use in all conceivable weather elements
* Designed for long operational use with minimal attention (in the 
WISP market, one measure is that it doesn't reboot itself, or require 
regular reboots)

* Designed for easy and fast repair
* The vendor stocks ample replacement units deployed geographically 
for fast supply.
* Support expertise by the vendor is readily available (excellent, 
easy-to-access tech support). Note that such support is almost never 
free, and carriers don't expect it to be. When they need help, they 
need it NOW and need to get their systems back online fast. (Carriers 
often have mandated time-to-repair maximums by regulatory agencies.)
* Subtle features like strain relief on all connectors, meeting the 
telecom industry requirements for rack mounting, built-in protection 
for power line surges and lightning.

* Superb monitoring and remote control capabilities
* Offer continuous VERY-in-depth training programs at the factory so 
that carriers can get their personnel FULLY up to speed on a product. 
Again, this almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be.
* Offer continuous product improvement, bug fixes, recalls when 
appropriate, and does so proactively when an issue is identified, and 
does so in a way to minimize downtime such as offering proactive 
replacement units.


Etc.

Regarding Alvarion versus WISPs... it's pretty simple. By offering 
more like carrier-grade products, Alvarion saw FAR more market 
demand by carriers, public safety, enterprise than they saw in the 
WISP market. They are willing to sell to WISPs, but few WISPs are 
willing to take the time to truly understand Alvarion's value 
proposition which involves FAR more than mere price of the product. 
You've finally 

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Tom DeReggi


Steve, excellent points. except... (also see inline)

By  your definition of Carrier grade, I could argue that many WISPs that 
just so happen not to use Alvarion, may very well better meet the definition 
of carrier grade than the carriers themselves.  One of the negatives about 
the Alvarion product is that they have fallen victom to the IBM syndrom. 
They try and be the best and standardize on that, but then they lock them 
selves into a box with a limited product, and get left behind as far as 
features and product enhancements.  IBM lost the war to Clones, because 
Clones were able to innovate faster and deliver more competitive products 
sooner.  Alvarion, has tried to full fill the role of carrier grade, 
probably better than any other manufacturer, from the perspective of the 
support level carrier demand, and quality of the manufacturing of the 
product.  But ultimately, where does Alvarion stand technology wise? Are 
they leading? Thats debatable.


For example: Alvarion still
1. Single Freq range per radio unit.
2. Single polarity per radio unit.

Limitations even the cheapest manufacturers have overcome. Many businesses 
operational savings are being had by WISPs chosing other third party 
wireless gear, allowing their operations to be more carrier class. (less 
stock, fewer components needed per truck, easier ordering, lower pricing, 
consistent OS interfaces, etc).


I'm not just targeting Alvarion in my complaint. How many manufactturers 
have taken advantage os new smart antenna technologies or FCC rules for 
higher power or new freq ranges?


For companies like Alvarion to stay on top as a leading Carrier grade 
company, they are going to have to break out of the IBM mold, and start 
innovating quicker.  They are starting to do that, by comming out with Wimax 
and 4.9Ghz gear quicker than other competitors in the space.



Here's my working definition of carrier grade:

Designed for use by carriers
Suitable for use by carriers
Sufficiently reliable for use by carriers

There is MUCH that goes into a product designed for use by carriers. It's 
expensive and a tough market, so a lot of vendors don't try. Here are just 
a few features that are carrier grade requirements from my perspective:



* Designed for use in all conceivable weather elements


WISPs pass. (Alvarion not required to do so)

* Designed for long operational use with minimal attention (in the WISP 
market, one measure is that it doesn't reboot itself, or require regular 
reboots)


WISPs fail. 1 minute outages every month or so must be tolerated.
Even Alvarion is known for occasional auto system reboots when harsh 
interence is encountered.



* Designed for easy and fast repair


WISPs pass and shine. But not aware of any Carrier Telco that passes that 
requirement.
Less likely with Alvarion, as more models need to be stocked, to ahve all 
conceivable replacement models.


* The vendor stocks ample replacement units deployed geographically for 
fast supply.


WISPs pass.  Telco's generally Fail. Not many Companies keep $100,000 
switches on hand for quick replacement.


* Support expertise by the vendor is readily available (excellent, 
easy-to-access tech support). Note that such support is almost never free, 
and carriers don't expect it to be. When they need help, they need it NOW 
and need to get their systems back online fast. (Carriers often have 
mandated time-to-repair maximums by regulatory agencies.)


Yes. But not aware of many Telcos that have a faster response time in their 
Tarrifs, than good local WISPs.


* Subtle features like strain relief on all connectors, meeting the 
telecom industry requirements for rack mounting, built-in protection for 
power line surges and lightning.


WISPs put in a valient effort, but fail or barely pass.
Telcos pass and shine, throwing millions of dollars away in over 
engineering.
So although they shine, its responsible for the bankruptcy of 25 of the 
largest 29 Telcos through year 2001.



* Superb monitoring and remote control capabilities


WISPs pass.  However, where Telcos shine, is 100s of commercial product are 
available to collect and store and track the statistics to backup SLA 
guarantees.  WISPs can offer and fullfil the same SLAs maybe even better, 
but can they prove it?


* Offer continuous VERY-in-depth training programs at the factory so that 
carriers can get their personnel FULLY up to speed on a product. Again, 
this almost never free, and carriers don't expect it to be.


Every WISPs product manufacturer offers this. The only reason all WISPs may 
not have it, is their decission not to pay for it, as they don't have a huge 
staff to justify it, when they know it already.


* Offer continuous product improvement, bug fixes, recalls when 
appropriate, and does so proactively when an issue is identified, and does 
so in a way to minimize downtime such as offering proactive replacement 
units.


Telcos pass. Most WISP networks do not. Open Source, 

Re: [WISPA] Error in Press Release

2006-04-12 Thread Tom DeReggi

John,

I have to say, somewhat of an embaressing situation. I sent out a few 
protests to my representatives as well, based on the press release.


We definately need to be clear on the understanding of this proposed bill. 
If it is as good as the text posted most recently correctly the 
misunderstanding, it might be appropriate to go as far as WISPA making a 
Press release on its support of the bill, praising the responsible parties. 
So it is not unclear what we support, and since it is such a super improtant 
issue today.


Could you post a copy of the bill when you get it, so we can all read it.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 12:42 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Error in Press Release



I read your press release titled:

TIA Applauds Introduction of Spectrum-Related Legislation by 
Representatives Inslee, Blackburn, Baldwin, Gillmor and Boucher


I read a line in the release below that is not true. It is this:

The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) praises the leadership 
of Representatives Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors ... for their 
introduction of legislation intended to allow the use of broadcast 
television spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 MHz by unlicensed 
devices, including wireless broadband services.


When I read that this bill was limited to allowing use between 608 and 
614 MHz as outlined above I was outraged. This is a mere 6 MHz of 
spectrum. I took that information and decided to rally WISP operators 
against this bill because it was against the language proposed by the 
Senate Commerce Committee bills allowing for all television unused 
channels.  Now we have several WISPs who have written their 
representatives OPPOSING this bill. I had someone finally send me the real 
language of the bill and found it actually says that the bill is asking 
for all unused television channel space with the exception of 608 to 614 
MHz. This is a COMPLETELY different meaning than what is portrayed in your 
press release and has caused a great deal of misinformation about this 
bill. PLEASE correct this so others do not make the same mistake.

With regrets,
John Scrivner


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] PPPoE w/Radius Question

2006-04-12 Thread Scott Reed




I am planning to move to PPPoE with Radius backend.  I have it all working on the bench.  In fact, with a couple of differnet scenarios, which leads to the questions.

I am going to use Mikrotik at each POP, so will have 3 APs coming into the MT.  Each AP on its own subnet.

Do you have Radius issue the addresses or the PPPoE server?  Why? (I like to make informed choices.)
If Radius, how do you determine what address to issue?  Especially if the user may be somewhat mobile.  Actually in one case I have a customer that will be in one town for a week, another town for a week (different POP,) etc.

Scott Reed 


Owner 


NewWays 


Wireless Networking 


Network Design, Installation and Administration 


www.nwwnet.net 








-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Tom DeReggi

Ok, assuming Real World Test win.

How does your TCP test handle packet loss? Does it slow the test down to 
attempt to reduce packet loss until its gone?
Thats what real world applications do, like FTP, and the real performance 
subscribers see, regardless of the Link's abilty to pass test traffic 
faster.  I want to see the performance my customers experience.


If your link has 2% packetloss, what impact will that have on customer's 
performance with various applications? Will your TCP tests show that.  I'm 
not passing judgement, I'll let you make that judgement you wrote it. But my 
TCP tests (Iperf) do not get me that information.  I've lost customers 
insisting that their link was operating perfectly based on TCP speed test, 
only to learn that the custoemr was right, and their performance was getting 
destroyed by packet loss. This is an important issue with Wireless, when 
packet loss is possible, due to interference and environmental condition 
changes.



WRAP board were always in the 23
to 25 mbps range yet a UDP test would pull almost 35 mbps,


Our testing never saw that.


Typical numbers were always in the 1,800 to 2,000
KBytes/sec as reported by the FTP client.


I don't contest that, based on a lab environemnt without packetloss.
Did you repeat those tests, introducing interference/packet loss into the 
link?
2% packet loss with FTP, can bring your performance of a 25 mbps link down 
to 100 kbps.

Does your test, replicate those results?

I agree that TCP is a preferred test for a clean lab environment test, to 
test maximum obtainable speed.
Butwho cares about that? What I want to know is what speed my link in the 
field is capable of doing, based on the conditions it is deployed in.


I'm not in the business of delivering commodity Up-To Burstable Services.


I am always amazed at how labels get applied.  To call something a
lower grade product


Understand, I was not saying your product is lower grade than other, buts 
saying that your product is not being as good as it can be, if it had more 
types of testing tools. Its what, a days work, to add Iperf to OS image?


Results are what count, not

how pretty you look or how good you sound.


But how do you know what your results are? If tests don't test accurately?


It is strange
to have to lie to the customer to get a high grade product rating.
Maybe we don't need that, and for the most part my users don't want it
either.  They don't want packet loss either.  Most of them prefer to
have the whole file delivered intact.


This is where you are loosing me. I'm not aware of anyone that lies to give 
a higher grade offering.
My comments are based on results I see in the field with live deployments, 
that cost me clients and save me clients.

I don't sell product or profit from what product user's select.

I am not judging your test tool, I have never performed test measuring the 
accuracy of your testing tool. I am simply asking you the real hard 
question, for you to evaluate whether your test tool, method considers all 
the factors that need to be tested. You tell me, but prove it, with an 
explanation of how your tool handles it.


Lonnie, its no big deal to us, we got a solution. We got Iperf running at 
every hop cell router, and have XP versions of Iperf to Email to our 
subscribers when tests need to be performed.  Not all WISPs are in that 
position. Its to your advantage, to add the tools that WISP may want, sothey 
can make their technical decissions that meet their standard what ever tyhat 
may be, apposed to being locked into the vendor's opinion.


Lonnie, StarOS is a great product, I'm not trying to say otherwise, nor am I 
challenging the speed capabilties of the product. I'm jsut discussing test 
variables.


I admit, I tend to use Mikrotik more for my APs, because of the Virtual AP 
feature. Why? Because it saves me $200 a month per radio on roof lease fees, 
because I now can have one AP for all my wifi needs, instead of multiple APs 
on the roof for various needs, and I only need one channels for all my 
needs, instead of multiple channels for various needs. (Wep compatibilty 
mode, WPA high security mode, HotSpot Free public access, VLAN protected 
provisioning mode).  It will be great when you get Virtual AP added to the 
product. It gets hard for me to test performance between a StarOS client and 
a Mikrotik AP, without a standardized test tool embedded in the radio. I got 
Iperf on the cell servers. But I'd love to be able to test performance to 
the CPE, without calling the customer to assist, and see the results I'm 
getting on the spot. It puts me in a vulnerable possition SLA wise and 
response time wise.


You can take the advise or leave it. Just my 2 cents.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Travis Johnson

Tom,

I am confused about your testing. If you are testing a link, and it has 
2% packet loss, then the link is going to run 2%-4% slower due to the 
loss, therefore the results will reflect that loss.


Ever run a speed test across a link with 50% loss? If it's set to a 
2Mbps connection, you get about 1Mbps when testing. It's still a 1Mbps 
connection, even with packet loss. Even using Trango's Linktest, it 
shows the maximum speed of the link BASED ON THE LOSS across the link.


Am I missing something? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Ok, assuming Real World Test win.

How does your TCP test handle packet loss? Does it slow the test down 
to attempt to reduce packet loss until its gone?
Thats what real world applications do, like FTP, and the real 
performance subscribers see, regardless of the Link's abilty to pass 
test traffic faster.  I want to see the performance my customers 
experience.


If your link has 2% packetloss, what impact will that have on 
customer's performance with various applications? Will your TCP tests 
show that.  I'm not passing judgement, I'll let you make that 
judgement you wrote it. But my TCP tests (Iperf) do not get me that 
information.  I've lost customers insisting that their link was 
operating perfectly based on TCP speed test, only to learn that the 
custoemr was right, and their performance was getting destroyed by 
packet loss. This is an important issue with Wireless, when packet 
loss is possible, due to interference and environmental condition 
changes.



WRAP board were always in the 23
to 25 mbps range yet a UDP test would pull almost 35 mbps,



Our testing never saw that.


Typical numbers were always in the 1,800 to 2,000
KBytes/sec as reported by the FTP client.



I don't contest that, based on a lab environemnt without packetloss.
Did you repeat those tests, introducing interference/packet loss into 
the link?
2% packet loss with FTP, can bring your performance of a 25 mbps link 
down to 100 kbps.

Does your test, replicate those results?

I agree that TCP is a preferred test for a clean lab environment test, 
to test maximum obtainable speed.
Butwho cares about that? What I want to know is what speed my link in 
the field is capable of doing, based on the conditions it is deployed in.


I'm not in the business of delivering commodity Up-To Burstable Services.


I am always amazed at how labels get applied.  To call something a
lower grade product



Understand, I was not saying your product is lower grade than other, 
buts saying that your product is not being as good as it can be, if it 
had more types of testing tools. Its what, a days work, to add Iperf 
to OS image?


Results are what count, not


how pretty you look or how good you sound.



But how do you know what your results are? If tests don't test 
accurately?



It is strange
to have to lie to the customer to get a high grade product rating.
Maybe we don't need that, and for the most part my users don't want it
either.  They don't want packet loss either.  Most of them prefer to
have the whole file delivered intact.



This is where you are loosing me. I'm not aware of anyone that lies to 
give a higher grade offering.
My comments are based on results I see in the field with live 
deployments, that cost me clients and save me clients.

I don't sell product or profit from what product user's select.

I am not judging your test tool, I have never performed test measuring 
the accuracy of your testing tool. I am simply asking you the real 
hard question, for you to evaluate whether your test tool, method 
considers all the factors that need to be tested. You tell me, but 
prove it, with an explanation of how your tool handles it.


Lonnie, its no big deal to us, we got a solution. We got Iperf running 
at every hop cell router, and have XP versions of Iperf to Email to 
our subscribers when tests need to be performed.  Not all WISPs are in 
that position. Its to your advantage, to add the tools that WISP may 
want, sothey can make their technical decissions that meet their 
standard what ever tyhat may be, apposed to being locked into the 
vendor's opinion.


Lonnie, StarOS is a great product, I'm not trying to say otherwise, 
nor am I challenging the speed capabilties of the product. I'm jsut 
discussing test variables.


I admit, I tend to use Mikrotik more for my APs, because of the 
Virtual AP feature. Why? Because it saves me $200 a month per radio on 
roof lease fees, because I now can have one AP for all my wifi needs, 
instead of multiple APs on the roof for various needs, and I only need 
one channels for all my needs, instead of multiple channels for 
various needs. (Wep compatibilty mode, WPA high security mode, HotSpot 
Free public access, VLAN protected provisioning mode).  It will be 
great when you get Virtual AP added to the product. It gets hard for 
me to test performance between a StarOS client and a Mikrotik AP, 

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP



 With that said I still think Alvarion is a far better platform than
 Canopy which is strictly my opinion and has no basis in fact. In the
 past I have been put-off by a perceived arrogance I have seen by some
 Alvarion representatives who have insisted previously that they had the
 only viable solution for wireless broadband and seemed as though they
 were claiming almost a holier than thou behavior toward anyone stating
 another opinion than their own. I have also seen a terribly biased
 negative attitude toward Alvarion by many WISPs who wanted to drive home
 the WISP=Cheap mentality to the point of alienating Alvarion from our
 entire market segment. Both Alvarion and most WISPs have lost a great
 ally in each other and I suspect both sides have suffered from such
 negativity. I am hoping to see this division closed between the typical
 WISP operator and Alvarion.

Until Alvarion makes a product that's viable for more than niche market
WISP, the 'division' is simply going to continue to exist.  They have
certain products that WISP's will find useful and valuable, but they don't
make mainstream WISP last mile equipment.   I have been expecting to see
them announce something, but so far, I've not seen anything.

The ball's in thier court.


North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Chad Halsted








I hope you enjoy yours as much as I have
mine. :D











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:52
PM
To: WISPA
 General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system
for a new WISP





Chad,

Based on your post, I just purchased a couple 533mhz boards with CM9 cards from
Lonnie. :)

Travis
Microserv

Chad Halsted wrote: 

Travis,



I have a StarOS PTP link using the 533mhz
WAR boards that get up to 33Mbps (TCP). Thats using CM9 atheros cards
and 2 PacWireless Dishes. 











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:28
AM
To: WISPA
 General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system
for a new WISP







Hi,

Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards in
just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum?

Travis
Microserv

Paul Hendry wrote: 

All the details are on the Valemount web sitehttp://www.staros.com/starvx/ Cheers,P.-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] OnBehalf Of Richard GoodinSent: 11 April 2006 09:15To: wireless@wispa.orgSubject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISPSo... Who makes them?, how much? 

Hi Richard, This cloaking mechanism is the 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes thatGeorge was referring to on the Star WAR boards. Works really well and evenseems to improve signal quality.Cheers,P.-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] OnBehalf Of Richard GoodinSent: 11 April 2006 08:09To: wireless@wispa.orgSubject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISPGuys;These all sound great. I was reading just a couple months back about a WISPoperator that had a severe problem. Just a few yards away, maybe 300 feet,another guy put up his tower. I think they were both on 2.4 GHZ, andsomeone suggested a different AP that would not even be detected byconventional systems. Something about nonstandard bandwidth, channelspacing or coding. I really feel that stealth is best here. These otherguys have been in business for a while and could cause trouble that I do notneed.Lee 

Trango does make a good product. I still have 2 Sunstream AP's in use. 

They 

are like Timex watches.I'm using Star War boards. A little bit more than the trango s. The 2 

card 

boards in a 5 gig rootenna let me use the 2nd card for an omni.Speeds are about 20+ megs or so and I cloak down to 5MHz and 10MHz 

channel 

sizes.One of the things I've been doing is slapping up repeaters all over theplace. Cheap as hell, about 400.00 or so.Lately I've ran lmr400 into some of my customers attics and installed anomni for their home wifi. We tend to service our customers right to the 

pc 

and it's a lot better router than a linksys. And I have happier customersand I'm happier.The 2 port and the 4 port both have dual ethernet as well.Pretty versatile product. Lonnie has come along way with the new warplatform.GeorgeTravis Johnson wrote: 

That's on quantity 30 $149 each. 5.8ghz, dual polarity, up to 3 



miles 



(add $40 for a dish and it goes up to 13 miles) and delivers up to 



10Mbps. 



Hard to beat! And with SmartPolling on the AP, you can get hundreds ofcustomers per sector.TravisMicroservRick Smith wrote: 

that's only quantity (large!) pricing isn't it ?Brian Rohrbacher wrote: 

If it's pretty absent of trees you might look at 5.8. Trango has thatcpe for $150. Not going to find any propriety gear cheaper.Richard Goodin wrote: 

I have been planning my WISP for about a year, and have yet to begindelivery of bandwidth to customers. My choice for service delivery 









was 









802.11b, but with increased competition from other services nearby(about 5 miles away) I am wondering how to avoid problems. I have a50' tower, and it is ROHN 45g. My choice for antennas would be 4 90degree horizontal antennas. I have looked at bandwidth and shopped 









it 









to death. My best price is $400 from Lime Light. And I've built acouple of servers, acquired some switches and a router. The Router 









is 









a Cisco 1750.My questions:What CPE's and AP's would work best in this environment? I want tokeep interferance to a minimum, as well as control costs. Myenvironment includes lots of desert, and single story buildings.Lee 







--WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 

--WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 10/04/2006--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 10/04/2006--WISPA Wireless List: 

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
I am missing something here.  You say a TCP test runs full speed even
in the face of packet loss.  My experience does not bear this out.  We
see good results in our tests because we have links with little or no
packet loss.  You can be assured that throughput results drop in the
face of packet loss.

On the other hand you can get a much higher number with a UDP test. 
You understand that UDP is connectionless and does not rely on any
sort of feedback (the periodic ACK) and just blindly pumps out
packets, with no knowledge that they were ever received.  iperf does
talk back and forth to get an idea of how many packets make it
through, but I could easily do a UDP test that would be at the full
speed of the device I am sending it from, yet the other end could have
a 100% blockage.  A TCP test would immediately show that as 0
throughput.

Anyway, this is digressing and getting personal, with shots at things
that have zero to do with throughput.

I now go back to lurk mode.

Lonnie

On 4/12/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Ok, assuming Real World Test win.

 How does your TCP test handle packet loss? Does it slow the test down to
 attempt to reduce packet loss until its gone?
 Thats what real world applications do, like FTP, and the real performance
 subscribers see, regardless of the Link's abilty to pass test traffic
 faster.  I want to see the performance my customers experience.

 If your link has 2% packetloss, what impact will that have on customer's
 performance with various applications? Will your TCP tests show that.  I'm
 not passing judgement, I'll let you make that judgement you wrote it. But my
 TCP tests (Iperf) do not get me that information.  I've lost customers
 insisting that their link was operating perfectly based on TCP speed test,
 only to learn that the custoemr was right, and their performance was getting
 destroyed by packet loss. This is an important issue with Wireless, when
 packet loss is possible, due to interference and environmental condition
 changes.

 WRAP board were always in the 23
 to 25 mbps range yet a UDP test would pull almost 35 mbps,

 Our testing never saw that.

 Typical numbers were always in the 1,800 to 2,000
 KBytes/sec as reported by the FTP client.

 I don't contest that, based on a lab environemnt without packetloss.
 Did you repeat those tests, introducing interference/packet loss into the
 link?
 2% packet loss with FTP, can bring your performance of a 25 mbps link down
 to 100 kbps.
 Does your test, replicate those results?

 I agree that TCP is a preferred test for a clean lab environment test, to
 test maximum obtainable speed.
 Butwho cares about that? What I want to know is what speed my link in the
 field is capable of doing, based on the conditions it is deployed in.

 I'm not in the business of delivering commodity Up-To Burstable Services.

 I am always amazed at how labels get applied.  To call something a
 lower grade product

 Understand, I was not saying your product is lower grade than other, buts
 saying that your product is not being as good as it can be, if it had more
 types of testing tools. Its what, a days work, to add Iperf to OS image?

  Results are what count, not
 how pretty you look or how good you sound.

 But how do you know what your results are? If tests don't test accurately?

 It is strange
 to have to lie to the customer to get a high grade product rating.
 Maybe we don't need that, and for the most part my users don't want it
 either.  They don't want packet loss either.  Most of them prefer to
 have the whole file delivered intact.

 This is where you are loosing me. I'm not aware of anyone that lies to give
 a higher grade offering.
 My comments are based on results I see in the field with live deployments,
 that cost me clients and save me clients.
 I don't sell product or profit from what product user's select.

 I am not judging your test tool, I have never performed test measuring the
 accuracy of your testing tool. I am simply asking you the real hard
 question, for you to evaluate whether your test tool, method considers all
 the factors that need to be tested. You tell me, but prove it, with an
 explanation of how your tool handles it.

 Lonnie, its no big deal to us, we got a solution. We got Iperf running at
 every hop cell router, and have XP versions of Iperf to Email to our
 subscribers when tests need to be performed.  Not all WISPs are in that
 position. Its to your advantage, to add the tools that WISP may want, sothey
 can make their technical decissions that meet their standard what ever tyhat
 may be, apposed to being locked into the vendor's opinion.

 Lonnie, StarOS is a great product, I'm not trying to say otherwise, nor am I
 challenging the speed capabilties of the product. I'm jsut discussing test
 variables.

 I admit, I tend to use Mikrotik more for my APs, because of the Virtual AP
 feature. Why? Because it saves me $200 a month per radio on roof lease fees,
 because I now can 

Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?

2006-04-12 Thread Peter R.

Tom,

The key to growth in business is hiring the right people.
You can successfully run more than one business at the same time with 
capable employees - as well as processes, procedures and controls in 
place. (This is the key to franchising and the E-Myth, btw).


Three problems:
1) Finding the right people
2) Having the processes in place
3) Letting go.

Regards,

Peter

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Rick,

I'm sure you'd do well at anything you put your mind to, and I'm sure 
you are capable.

However, the only advice I can give is...

The key to success is finding the time to manage your company. The 
only real person that can be trusted to do that well are the people 
that have stake in that compnay. In my company's case its me 
personally. There is only so much time in the day.
A business owner needs to decide what business they want to be in, and 
then focus on that venture, its all one mortal human can handle in a 
competitive environment and succeed. A  CALL CENTER is a Full time 
business, just like your WISP. Helping your WISP clients, means staff 
is not available to help Call Center clients at the same time, and 
vice versa. These problems go away, when both companies scale large 
enough to have their own staff. However, getting a company to that 
stage, of self operating,  is where most business owners fail, its not 
easy.  You are no longer able to pick up the slack on your own. 
Franchises often make it. But getting two businesses to that stage 
simultaneously is near impossible.  So should your perogative to be a 
Call Center, go for it, thats what the American Dream is all about, 
you have just a good a chance as any one else. There is also a big 
need for a call center, where the owner has real world WISP experience 
to add credability to supporting WISPs. But to do a good job at a call 
center, be realistic that your WISP surely would sacrify to allow it 
to happen.


Which business do you want to be in?  Personally, its a struggle I 
face regularly. (WISP, Network integrator, Hardware reseller, router 
manufacturer, Software developer). Opportunity is on every corner, but 
you can't do it all well, which do you take?
A WISP clearly is NOT the least risky of all the options out there. 
However, I chose to be a WISP. I am banking on reoccuring revenue, one 
day without requiring reoccuring work to match, and realistic about 
the fact I hate to be caught behind a desk 24x7.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread Steve Stroh


Tom:

My defense of Alvarion is pretty mild. They're definitely drifting down 
the innovation curve, not up. They're incredibly arrogant about not 
doing Wi-Fi despite the growing, impressive wins of Wi-Fi mesh vendors. 
They're not doing mesh, etc. They now are involved pretty deeply in the 
cellular and WiMAX industry, and that seems to have the vast majority 
of their corporate attention. But, in their (mild) defense, they're 
meeting the demands from their identified customers. (They don't seem 
to recognize what a trap this can be; apparently no one there has read 
The Innovator's Dilemma.)


There are certainly WISPs that come really close to a working 
definition of carrier-grade; I didn't mean to imply that they didn't 
exist.


Great points, all - yours was one of the best pieces of reading I've 
seen on the WISP-related lists in a long time - it elevated the SNR.



Thanks,

Steve


On Apr 12, 2006, at 17:28, Tom DeReggi wrote:



Steve, excellent points. except... (also see inline)

By  your definition of Carrier grade, I could argue that many WISPs 
that just so happen not to use Alvarion, may very well better meet the 
definition of carrier grade than the carriers themselves.  One of the 
negatives about the Alvarion product is that they have fallen victom 
to the IBM syndrom. They try and be the best and standardize on that, 
but then they lock them selves into a box with a limited product, and 
get left behind as far as features and product enhancements.  IBM lost 
the war to Clones, because Clones were able to innovate faster and 
deliver more competitive products sooner.  Alvarion, has tried to full 
fill the role of carrier grade, probably better than any other 
manufacturer, from the perspective of the support level carrier 
demand, and quality of the manufacturing of the product.  But 
ultimately, where does Alvarion stand technology wise? Are they 
leading? Thats debatable.


For example: Alvarion still
1. Single Freq range per radio unit.
2. Single polarity per radio unit.

Limitations even the cheapest manufacturers have overcome. Many 
businesses operational savings are being had by WISPs chosing other 
third party wireless gear, allowing their operations to be more 
carrier class. (less stock, fewer components needed per truck, easier 
ordering, lower pricing, consistent OS interfaces, etc).


I'm not just targeting Alvarion in my complaint. How many 
manufactturers have taken advantage os new smart antenna technologies 
or FCC rules for higher power or new freq ranges?


For companies like Alvarion to stay on top as a leading Carrier grade 
company, they are going to have to break out of the IBM mold, and 
start innovating quicker.  They are starting to do that, by comming 
out with Wimax and 4.9Ghz gear quicker than other competitors in the 
space.


WISPs pass. (Alvarion not required to do so)

WISPs fail. 1 minute outages every month or so must be tolerated.
Even Alvarion is known for occasional auto system reboots when harsh 
interence is encountered.


WISPs pass and shine. But not aware of any Carrier Telco that passes 
that requirement.
Less likely with Alvarion, as more models need to be stocked, to ahve 
all conceivable replacement models.


WISPs pass.  Telco's generally Fail. Not many Companies keep $100,000 
switches on hand for quick replacement.


Yes. But not aware of many Telcos that have a faster response time in 
their Tarrifs, than good local WISPs.


WISPs put in a valient effort, but fail or barely pass.
Telcos pass and shine, throwing millions of dollars away in over 
engineering.
So although they shine, its responsible for the bankruptcy of 25 of 
the largest 29 Telcos through year 2001.


WISPs pass.  However, where Telcos shine, is 100s of commercial 
product are available to collect and store and track the statistics to 
backup SLA guarantees.  WISPs can offer and fullfil the same SLAs 
maybe even better, but can they prove it?


Every WISPs product manufacturer offers this. The only reason all 
WISPs may not have it, is their decission not to pay for it, as they 
don't have a huge staff to justify it, when they know it already.


Telcos pass. Most WISP networks do not. Open Source, provides more 
options for improvements and impowers the WISP, but no guarantees are 
there that it will continue to be given or at what success rate.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc


Budget being only difference, and WISP qualify for carrier better than 
ILEC in some cases.


---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-12 Thread George
I've always looked at Alvarion as being carrier grade or as close as 
anything I've seen.


And they are a fine company.

George



Steve Stroh wrote:


Tom:

My defense of Alvarion is pretty mild. They're definitely drifting down 
the innovation curve, not up. They're incredibly arrogant about not 
doing Wi-Fi despite the growing, impressive wins of Wi-Fi mesh vendors. 
They're not doing mesh, etc. They now are involved pretty deeply in the 
cellular and WiMAX industry, and that seems to have the vast majority of 
their corporate attention. But, in their (mild) defense, they're meeting 
the demands from their identified customers. (They don't seem to 
recognize what a trap this can be; apparently no one there has read The 
Innovator's Dilemma.)


There are certainly WISPs that come really close to a working definition 
of carrier-grade; I didn't mean to imply that they didn't exist.


Great points, all - yours was one of the best pieces of reading I've 
seen on the WISP-related lists in a long time - it elevated the SNR.



Thanks,

Steve


On Apr 12, 2006, at 17:28, Tom DeReggi wrote:



Steve, excellent points. except... (also see inline)

By  your definition of Carrier grade, I could argue that many WISPs 
that just so happen not to use Alvarion, may very well better meet the 
definition of carrier grade than the carriers themselves.  One of the 
negatives about the Alvarion product is that they have fallen victom 
to the IBM syndrom. They try and be the best and standardize on that, 
but then they lock them selves into a box with a limited product, and 
get left behind as far as features and product enhancements.  IBM lost 
the war to Clones, because Clones were able to innovate faster and 
deliver more competitive products sooner.  Alvarion, has tried to full 
fill the role of carrier grade, probably better than any other 
manufacturer, from the perspective of the support level carrier 
demand, and quality of the manufacturing of the product.  But 
ultimately, where does Alvarion stand technology wise? Are they 
leading? Thats debatable.


For example: Alvarion still
1. Single Freq range per radio unit.
2. Single polarity per radio unit.

Limitations even the cheapest manufacturers have overcome. Many 
businesses operational savings are being had by WISPs chosing other 
third party wireless gear, allowing their operations to be more 
carrier class. (less stock, fewer components needed per truck, easier 
ordering, lower pricing, consistent OS interfaces, etc).


I'm not just targeting Alvarion in my complaint. How many 
manufactturers have taken advantage os new smart antenna technologies 
or FCC rules for higher power or new freq ranges?


For companies like Alvarion to stay on top as a leading Carrier grade 
company, they are going to have to break out of the IBM mold, and 
start innovating quicker.  They are starting to do that, by comming 
out with Wimax and 4.9Ghz gear quicker than other competitors in the 
space.


WISPs pass. (Alvarion not required to do so)

WISPs fail. 1 minute outages every month or so must be tolerated.
Even Alvarion is known for occasional auto system reboots when harsh 
interence is encountered.


WISPs pass and shine. But not aware of any Carrier Telco that passes 
that requirement.
Less likely with Alvarion, as more models need to be stocked, to ahve 
all conceivable replacement models.


WISPs pass.  Telco's generally Fail. Not many Companies keep $100,000 
switches on hand for quick replacement.


Yes. But not aware of many Telcos that have a faster response time in 
their Tarrifs, than good local WISPs.


WISPs put in a valient effort, but fail or barely pass.
Telcos pass and shine, throwing millions of dollars away in over 
engineering.
So although they shine, its responsible for the bankruptcy of 25 of 
the largest 29 Telcos through year 2001.


WISPs pass.  However, where Telcos shine, is 100s of commercial 
product are available to collect and store and track the statistics to 
backup SLA guarantees.  WISPs can offer and fullfil the same SLAs 
maybe even better, but can they prove it?


Every WISPs product manufacturer offers this. The only reason all 
WISPs may not have it, is their decission not to pay for it, as they 
don't have a huge staff to justify it, when they know it already.


Telcos pass. Most WISP networks do not. Open Source, provides more 
options for improvements and impowers the WISP, but no guarantees are 
there that it will continue to be given or at what success rate.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc


Budget being only difference, and WISP qualify for carrier better than 
ILEC in some cases.



---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?

2006-04-12 Thread Rick Smith

point well made.  My partner and I run 4 business simultaneously.

We've put all the right people in the right places, and yes it took time 
to figure out who the right people were.


That #3 on your list is the hardest part though. :)

R


Peter R. wrote:


Tom,

The key to growth in business is hiring the right people.
You can successfully run more than one business at the same time with 
capable employees - as well as processes, procedures and controls in 
place. (This is the key to franchising and the E-Myth, btw).


Three problems:
1) Finding the right people
2) Having the processes in place
3) Letting go.

Regards,

Peter

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Rick,

I'm sure you'd do well at anything you put your mind to, and I'm sure 
you are capable.

However, the only advice I can give is...

The key to success is finding the time to manage your company. The 
only real person that can be trusted to do that well are the people 
that have stake in that compnay. In my company's case its me 
personally. There is only so much time in the day.
A business owner needs to decide what business they want to be in, 
and then focus on that venture, its all one mortal human can handle 
in a competitive environment and succeed. A  CALL CENTER is a Full 
time business, just like your WISP. Helping your WISP clients, means 
staff is not available to help Call Center clients at the same time, 
and vice versa. These problems go away, when both companies scale 
large enough to have their own staff. However, getting a company to 
that stage, of self operating,  is where most business owners fail, 
its not easy.  You are no longer able to pick up the slack on your 
own. Franchises often make it. But getting two businesses to that 
stage simultaneously is near impossible.  So should your perogative 
to be a Call Center, go for it, thats what the American Dream is all 
about, you have just a good a chance as any one else. There is also a 
big need for a call center, where the owner has real world WISP 
experience to add credability to supporting WISPs. But to do a good 
job at a call center, be realistic that your WISP surely would 
sacrify to allow it to happen.


Which business do you want to be in?  Personally, its a struggle I 
face regularly. (WISP, Network integrator, Hardware reseller, router 
manufacturer, Software developer). Opportunity is on every corner, 
but you can't do it all well, which do you take?
A WISP clearly is NOT the least risky of all the options out there. 
However, I chose to be a WISP. I am banking on reoccuring revenue, 
one day without requiring reoccuring work to match, and realistic 
about the fact I hate to be caught behind a desk 24x7.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/